What do I mean by that? Well, imagine you're trying to reach reflective equilibrium in your morality. You do this by using good meta-ethical rules, zooming up and down at various moral levels, making decisions on how to resolve inconsistencies, etc... But how do you know when to stop? Well, you stop when your morality is perfectly self-consistent, when you no longer have any urge to change your moral or meta-moral setup.

Wait... what? No.

You don't solve the value-alignment problem by trying to write down your confusions about the foundations of moral philosophy, because writing down confusion still leaves you fundamentally confused. No amount of intelligence can solve an ill-posed problem in some way other than pointing out that the problem is ill-posed.

You solve it by removing the need to do moral philosophy and instead specifying a computation that corresponds to your moral psychology and its real, actually-existing, specifiable properties.

And then telling metaphysics to take a running jump to boot, and crunching down on Strong Naturalism brand crackers, which come in neat little bullet shapes.